that article was something. i guess when nadal beat fed at AO murray also beat him. kind of weird. i guess he forgot about the USO final that just happened where fed beat up on murray.
everyone seems to forget fed beat up on murray at the USO final but remember fed losing at an exo, or indian wells, or something that will be lost with time.

that article was something. i guess when nadal beat fed at AO murray also beat him. kind of weird. i guess he forgot about the USO final that just happened where fed beat up on murray.
everyone seems to forget fed beat up on murray at the USO final but remember fed losing at an exo, or indian wells, or something that will be lost with time.

Here's another oldie, but goodie from the grand tennis connoisseur known by the name of Simon Reed:

Reed: Verdasco is the future

Eurosport - Tue, 17 Mar 16:40:00 2009

Eurosport-Yahoo! blogger Simon Reed has seen the future - and his name is Fernando Verdasco.

I saw Fernando Verdasco playing at Indian Wells last night - and he's the future.

I wrote last week that the world's top four are all pretty much in the right place with their games, but that Verdasco could be better player than Novak Djokovic - and I stand by that now.

He's the most exciting new thing in tennis, and the world could be his oyster.

The tennis he produced against Richard Gasquet last night was simply exhilarating, thrilling stuff. I was dog tired but I just couldn't keep my eyes off it. Fantastic.

The combination of coaching from Darren Cahill, physical training from Gil Reyes, and Andre Agassi chipping in with bits of advice, have turned Verdasco into a quite incredible player.

His physique in particular has changed completely. Reyes has obviously been at him non-stop, and if he can keep himself fit and consistent then he could be right up there with Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray.

There are no other words for it: he's a potential world number one, though several things need to happen for him to reach the top spot.

For starters, Federer's self-doubt in crucial situations would have to continue and Nadal would have to falter physically, which isn't happening at the moment but certainly could happen given his history.

I don't see Djokovic as quite the threat that others do. He's got terrific credentials but I'm just not on his bandwagon like other people are. Murray, for his part, has yet to go that final yard in a Grand Slam - but I think he will.

Verdasco, in my eyes, is up with any of them. What's more, he has become the most thrilling spectacle in the game. His shotmaking is unbelievable, his stamina - as we saw in Melbourne - is endless, and if I could watch any player in the world at the moment, I'd watch him.

And all this from a player who spent years floating around the middle reaches of the world's top-50 without looking like he had the potential to reach the top.

The truth of it, I think, is that he was easily distracted in a way that many of us are in our early twenties. Let's just say he kept a closer eye on the women's circuit than the men's!

His social life definitely wasn't helping his tennis, but boy are things different now. He's putting in the physical and mental work he needs to do. He's got much more patience, more confidence to keep going through the rallies, and he knows he can pull the trigger at any time.

And then there's his breathtaking array of shots. This man is a champion waiting to happen.

All in all it's a really exciting time for the game that compares to any of the golden periods of tennis: Agassi, Sampras and Courier from the early '90s, Becker and Edberg, or Connors and McEnroe from the '80s. There were great rivalries out there, and we're once again getting greater strength in depth.

Before Federer came on the scene the depth was lacking. That's not to say he was lucky, because he was incredibly consistent. And he was also unlucky in that Nadal came on to the scene. As probably the greatest clay-court player of all time, Nadal has stopped Federer claiming a career Grand Slam.

But the depth at the top has increased hugely now, with first Murray and now Verdasco staking their claims to be among the world's best.

Verdasco does need to win at Indian Wells to show he is the real deal. If he gets bundled out in the next round I'll look pretty silly, because he needs to beat better players than Gasquet to prove himself at the top level.

But right now, if all of the top-five produce their best this week, I genuinely believe Verdasco would walk away the winner.

Click to expand...

Bandwagoning, much? Somebody on another board referred to Mr. Reed as the "tennis commentators' answer to Ed Wood." I thought that was a pretty apt description.

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

True #1 without even winning a slam. What blind homerism. Federer atleast is a many time and recent multiple slam champion. That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

Click to expand...

Um...you do realize that Nadal never would have been #1 at all if Federer had never gotten mono and injured his back, right? Now that Federer is finally healthy again, Nadal won't be getting back to #1 anytime soon.

Um...you do realize that Nadal never would have been #1 at all if Federer had never gotten mono and injured his back, right? Now that Federer is finally healthy again, Nadal won't be getting back to #1 anytime soon.

No. Like how he streamrolled through last years Wimbledon and beat Mr Federer in the final.

Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point. Federer had mono and the after-effects of mono for most of 2008, up until the US Open. If he never got mono, no way, and I mean NO WAY, does Nadal EVER beat Federer at Wimbledon. That would be like Agassi beating Sampras at Wimbledon. Never happened.

Thanks for making my point. Federer had mono and the after-effects of mono for most of 2008, up until the US Open. If he never got mono, no way, and I mean NO WAY, does Nadal EVER beat Federer at Wimbledon. That would be like Agassi beating Sampras at Wimbledon. Never happened.

Click to expand...

Nadal should have beaten Federer in the 07 final if he didn't bust his knee at the end of the 4th set, on top of that Nadal had 4 break points at the start of the 5th. That blows up theory out of the water.

Reed needs to go back to his dealer and ask for a refund for whatever the hell is he is smoking or was smoking when he wrote that post:roll::lol:

i mean to call Murray the "true number one" would be an insult to even Dinara Safina who made 2 slam final(Australia and Paris) and another slam semis at Wimbledon and her 2 MS compared to a 4th round in Australia;Quarters or 4th round in Paris and 1 semis for Murray at Wimbledon

I'm just saying if we want to bash the wta and the ranking system the same would have to be said about the atp and that punk Murray ascending to world # 2 in the absence of Nadal;due to injuy;-)

That being said for me the true #1 is Nadal as he lost it through injury rather than by Federer outperforming him to take it.

Click to expand...

According to your logic, the true #1 of 2008 was Federer as he lost it through illness rather than Nadal outperforming him to take it.
At least Federer had the guts to show up to those tournaments rather than chickening out and withdraw from them.

Nadal should have beaten Federer in the 07 final if he didn't bust his knee at the end of the 4th set, on top of that Nadal had 4 break points at the start of the 5th. That blows up theory out of the water.

Click to expand...

Um...and how many break points did Federer have against Nadal in the '08 Wimbledon final? The '09 Australian Open final? How about the '06 and '07 French Open finals?

Break points mean nothing unless you can covert them. Having break points don't win you the match. Winning match point wins you the match.

ha ha, i used to like simon reed but he's got a serious case of Brit-blindness.

I just love people who write Federer off, time after time they're proven wrong. I wonder if he still feels the same way after Fed's last 2 matches....

The world number 1 is the man at the top of the rankings, always has and always has been. no such thing as a true world number one.

Best form on north american hardcourts? yeah, you can give him that since he has had such great success since Cincy last year, but Murray still hasn't produced the goods at a slam and until he does, there is no way he can be considered a favourite when there are other players who have significantly more pedigree and experience at Slam level, notably Federer and Nadal.

i'm taking an objective view here, if I wanted to bash his style of play I could, but there's no need to do that, the facts speak for themselves. 7 best of 5 set matches is as they say, a different animal, and one that Murray has yet to tame.

ha ha, i used to like simon reed but he's got a serious case of Brit-blindness.

I just love people who write Federer off, time after time they're proven wrong. I wonder if he still feels the same way after Fed's last 2 matches....

The world number 1 is the man at the top of the rankings, always has and always has been. no such thing as a true world number one.

Best form on north american hardcourts? yeah, you can give him that since he has had such great success since Cincy last year, but Murray still hasn't produced the goods at a slam and until he does, there is no way he can be considered a favourite when there are other players who have significantly more pedigree and experience at Slam level, notably Federer and Nadal.

i'm taking an objective view here, if I wanted to bash his style of play I could, but there's no need to do that, the facts speak for themselves. 7 best of 5 set matches is as they say, a different animal, and one that Murray has yet to tame.

This article was absolutely terrible to begin with. There's no argumentation whatsoever. he just wants MUrray to win so badly he's going to argue that Murray is the favourite no matter what. I feel bad for some good Murray fans which are def. around, but I don't feel bad for British media people like Simon Reed. He deserves this and I hope he comes up with something better next time.

A lot of experts here did think Murray would win. So u can't blame someone who merely earns his bread writing articles on tennis.

Click to expand...

I don't blame him for thinking Murray would win. I blame him for not coming up with any arguments, and also saying Murray is the real no. 1, which is absolute bogus, AND very very disrespectful to the current world no. 1.

His argumentation is just lacking. First he says that federer has become a Slam monster that only performs in Slams, then he can't look past him losing to Tsonga in a MS event:? He doesn't waste ONE word on Murray's disappointing Slam season before this tournament. This was just no journalism. It was wild guessing and repeating that Murray is his pick, with absolutely no serious arguments to back that up. If he wants to go with Murray, fine.. but from a journalist I expect reasons why Federer won't do as well as he's done in Slams this year, why Murray will do better than he's done, while he WILL beat Roddick this time around and perhaps even something about while MUrray's style suits the surface.

But aside from that, he actually says Federer was HANDED his Wimbledon and FO titles. LMAO?

Click to expand...

OMG, a lot of folks on this forum would agree.

I guess everyone in the history of sport was handed his titles because some contender or other must have been injured, sick, tired or on the other side of the draw. Anyway, its sad to see that people writing articles too (not just posters here) are more fans of a player, than fans of the sport.